A considerable majority of known languages are prefixing and suffixing at one and the same time, but the relative importance of the two groups of affixed elements naturally varies enormously.  In some languages, such as Latin and Russian, the suffixes alone relate the word to the rest of the sentence, the prefixes being confined to the expression of such ideas as delimit the concrete significance of the radical element without influencing its bearing in the proposition.  A Latin form like remittebantur “they were being sent back” may serve as an illustration of this type of distribution of elements.  The prefixed element re- “back” merely qualifies to a certain extent the inherent significance of the radical element mitt- “send,” while the suffixes _-eba-_, _-nt-_, and _-ur_ convey the less concrete, more strictly formal, notions of time, person, plurality, and passivity.

On the other hand, there are languages, like the Bantu group of Africa or the Athabaskan languages[30] of North America, in which the grammatically significant elements precede, those that follow the radical element forming a relatively dispensable class.  The Hupa word te-s-e-ya-te “I will go,” for example, consists of a radical element _-ya-_ “to go,” three essential prefixes and a formally subsidiary suffix.  The element te- indicates that the act takes place here and there in space or continuously over space; practically, it has no clear-cut significance apart from such verb stems as it is customary to connect it with.  The second prefixed element, _-s-_, is even less easy to define.  All we can say is that it is used in verb forms of “definite” time and that it marks action as in progress rather than as beginning or coming to an end.  The third prefix, _-e-_, is a pronominal element, “I,” which can be used only in “definite” tenses.  It is highly important to understand that the use of _-e-_ is conditional on that of _-s-_ or of certain alternative prefixes and that te- also is in practice linked with _-s-_.  The group te-s-e-ya is a firmly knit grammatical unit.  The suffix _-te_, which indicates the future, is no more necessary to its formal balance than is the prefixed re- of the Latin word; it is not an element that is capable of standing alone but its function is materially delimiting rather than strictly formal.[31]

[Footnote 30:  Including such languages as Navaho, Apache, Hupa, Carrier, Chipewyan, Loucheux.]

[Footnote 31:  This may seem surprising to an English reader.  We generally think of time as a function that is appropriately expressed in a purely formal manner.  This notion is due to the bias that Latin grammar has given us.  As a matter of fact the English future (I shall go) is not expressed by affixing at all; moreover, it may be expressed by the present, as in to-morrow I leave this place, where the temporal function is inherent in the independent adverb.  Though in lesser degree, the Hupa _-te_ is as irrelevant to the vital word as is to-morrow to the grammatical “feel” of I leave.]